Spider-Man films

Note that this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx ( talk) 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Main page	Articles
Spider-Man film series	Spider-Man · Spider-Man 2 · Spider-Man 3

Gary King ( talk) 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support - Meets the Good Topic criteria, all Spider-Man films so it's comprehensive. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Temporary oppose - per the X-Men nom. IMO you can't nominate things without even attempting to get the blessing of the guys who got the articles to GA - rst20xx ( talk) 23:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  This was on my Goals page for FTC; GTC was open, so I submitted it while I continue working towards an FTC. I opposed GTC; I do not intend on reaping credit from this process. I intend on getting these topics through this process so I can focus on FTCs. You have got some double standards if you compare this to several FTCs such as Wikipedia:Featured topics/Galilean moons and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Gwen Stefani albums, to name a few. The difference here is there is no bot to grab the nominators, to list them on a special page, to rank them in order. And there shouldn't be one. Gary King ( talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Except that with the moons, the nominator actually bothered to expand one of the articles. Nergaal ( talk) 04:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Unfortunately, you are fishing for GTCs. Gary King ( talk) 04:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  To some opposing GTCs_{see"I opposed GTC"} might sound greedy, and something on the lines of "I need time to work on these GAs so I can look good when I nominate the topics". Nergaal ( talk) 04:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Why would rst20xx oppose this nomination to work on the topic himself so he can nominate it? Gary King ( talk) 04:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Congrats for reading exactly what I meant! Nergaal ( talk) 04:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  No, I opposed GTC because then there will be people who nominate GANs prematurely to get more of them. Gary King ( talk) 04:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  And how exactly is this argument making you either (1) a significant contributor to the topic, or (2) show that you've consulted regular nominators before nomination? Nergaal ( talk) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You're just antagonizing me now. I will close the topics I feel should be closed. Gary King ( talk) 05:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Actually same thing could be argued that happens with FAC/FTC already. There is probably no way that is going to be prevented. Anyways, these are just opinions. Nergaal ( talk) 05:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator - rst20xx ( talk) 14:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply